- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,523
- Points
- 83
Pfizer and Moderna trumpeted 95% efficacy for their Covid-19 vaccines.
Both are like Tatler's suave hunks, proclaiming that they are S.N.A.G., only for me to discover their lack of prowess and dexterity in bed, after my night's out with them.
On first sight, they look and sound "efficacious". However, their bedroom performances are utterly "ineffective" and unsatisfactory. And more often than not, my expectations absolutely dashed. Their "meat" is simply not cut out to give effective pleasure.
Efficacy and Efficiency are two different concepts.
Efficacy is a measure of how the vaccine performs in a highly controlled and ideal environment. Efficiency measures how well the vaccine performs in a real world setting.
This can only mean one thing ∼Pfizer and Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine's effectiveness, when introduced to various parts of the world including Singapore, is bound to be lower in effectiveness, than their proudly acclaimed 95% efficacy.
For example, let's assume that @ginfreely is warded in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for schizophrenia. She is constantly under the watch of nurses. They do regular checks on her, always making sure she takes the prescribed clozapine tablets. In the ward, @ginfreely recovers and in a relatively short time, she ceases to have auditory hallucinations of firecrackers and disturbing nosies from her imaginary neighbours. She is able to recover and starts to feel better, in a secured environment, under good care. She is discharged. However, instead of taking medication regularly, she forgets and drinks herself silly on alcohol, or maybe she consumes illicit drugs. She starts to worry about her home in Johore, and in no time, the imaginary firecrackers and thumping neighbourly noises reappear in her decaying cerebrum. She falls into another relapse. She hallucinates men wolf whistling at her aunty looking self when she dines in a low SES food court joint.
This above example goes to show the treatment is only efficacious in @ginfreely stay at IMH. It isn't effective in her real life. The same applies to Pfizer's and Moderna's supposed 95% efficacious vaccine.
Another example is @cloudy 's precious daughter, who perhaps may have a genetic comorbidity that has passed on to her from her lacklustre maternal and foreign paternal genes. I am sure Pfizer or Moderna did not perform clincal trials on such comorbid subjects when they claimed their vaccine has a 95% efficacy rating.
@cloudy 's daughter is injected with the vaccine. She ends up physically deformed, or perhaps, the vaccine retards her neurological growth, to a point that is far worse than her cockstained anti-Trump mother.
There you go, efficacy isn't effectiveness.
It's Friday today. Have a wonderful weekend ahead!
Both are like Tatler's suave hunks, proclaiming that they are S.N.A.G., only for me to discover their lack of prowess and dexterity in bed, after my night's out with them.
On first sight, they look and sound "efficacious". However, their bedroom performances are utterly "ineffective" and unsatisfactory. And more often than not, my expectations absolutely dashed. Their "meat" is simply not cut out to give effective pleasure.
Efficacy and Efficiency are two different concepts.
Efficacy is a measure of how the vaccine performs in a highly controlled and ideal environment. Efficiency measures how well the vaccine performs in a real world setting.
This can only mean one thing ∼Pfizer and Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine's effectiveness, when introduced to various parts of the world including Singapore, is bound to be lower in effectiveness, than their proudly acclaimed 95% efficacy.
For example, let's assume that @ginfreely is warded in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for schizophrenia. She is constantly under the watch of nurses. They do regular checks on her, always making sure she takes the prescribed clozapine tablets. In the ward, @ginfreely recovers and in a relatively short time, she ceases to have auditory hallucinations of firecrackers and disturbing nosies from her imaginary neighbours. She is able to recover and starts to feel better, in a secured environment, under good care. She is discharged. However, instead of taking medication regularly, she forgets and drinks herself silly on alcohol, or maybe she consumes illicit drugs. She starts to worry about her home in Johore, and in no time, the imaginary firecrackers and thumping neighbourly noises reappear in her decaying cerebrum. She falls into another relapse. She hallucinates men wolf whistling at her aunty looking self when she dines in a low SES food court joint.
This above example goes to show the treatment is only efficacious in @ginfreely stay at IMH. It isn't effective in her real life. The same applies to Pfizer's and Moderna's supposed 95% efficacious vaccine.
Another example is @cloudy 's precious daughter, who perhaps may have a genetic comorbidity that has passed on to her from her lacklustre maternal and foreign paternal genes. I am sure Pfizer or Moderna did not perform clincal trials on such comorbid subjects when they claimed their vaccine has a 95% efficacy rating.
@cloudy 's daughter is injected with the vaccine. She ends up physically deformed, or perhaps, the vaccine retards her neurological growth, to a point that is far worse than her cockstained anti-Trump mother.
There you go, efficacy isn't effectiveness.
It's Friday today. Have a wonderful weekend ahead!
Last edited:
